Powell’s Testimony to Congress Revealed A Lot

Image Credit: C-Span (YouTube)

Is the Fed Doing Too Much, Not Enough, or Just Right?

The Fed Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has an ongoing credibility problem. The problem is that markets, economists, and now Congress find him extremely credible. So credible that they have already declared him a winner fighting inflation, or of more pertinence, the economy a loser because Powell and the Fed policymakers have been so resolute in their fight against the rising cost of goods and services that soon there will be an abundance of newly unemployed, businesses will falter, and the stock market will be left in tatters. This view that he has already done too much and that the economy has been overkilled, even while it shows remarkable strength, was echoed many times during his visit to Capital Hill for his twice a year testimony.

“As of the end of December, there were 1.9 job openings for each unemployed individual, close to the all-time peak recorded last March, while unemployment insurance claims have remained near historic lows.” – Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell (March 8, 2023).

Powell’s Address

Perhaps the most influential individual on financial markets in the U.S. and around the world, Fed Chair Powell continued his hawkish (inflation fighter, interest rate hiker) tone at his Senate and House testimonies. The overall message was; inflation is bad, inflation has been persistent, we will continue on the path to bring it down, also employment is incredibly strong, the employment situation is such that we can do more, we will do more to protect the U.S. economy from the ravages of inflation.

Powell began, “My colleagues and I are acutely aware that high inflation is causing significant hardship, and we are strongly committed to returning inflation to our 2 percent goal.” Powell discussed the forceful actions taken to date and added, “we have more work to do. Our policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices. Without price stability, the economy does not work for anyone. In particular, without price stability, we will not achieve a sustained period of labor market conditions that benefit all.”

Powell discussed the slowed growth last year; there were two periods of negative GDP growth reported during the first two quarters. He mentioned how the once red-hot housing sector is weakening under higher interest rates and that “Higher interest rates and slower output growth also appear to be weighing on business fixed investment.” He then discussed the impact on labor markets, “Despite the slowdown in growth, the labor market remains extremely tight. The unemployment rate was 3.4 percent in January, its lowest level since 1969. Job gains remained very strong in January, while the supply of labor has continued to lag.1 As of the end of December, there were 1.9 job openings for each unemployed individual, close to the all-time peak recorded last March, while unemployment insurance claims have remained near historic lows.”

On the subject of monetary policy, the head of the Federal Reserve mentioned that the target of 2% inflation has not been met and that recent numbers have it moving in the wrong direction. Powell also discussed that the Fed had raised short-term interest rates by adding 4.50%. He suggested that recent economic numbers require that an increase to where the sufficient height of fed funds peaks is likely higher than previously thought. All the while, he added, “we are continuing the process of significantly reducing the size of our balance sheet.”

Powell acknowledged some headway, “We are seeing the effects of our policy actions on demand in the most interest-sensitive sectors of the economy. It will take time, however, for the full effects of monetary restraint to be realized, especially on inflation. In light of the cumulative tightening of monetary policy and the lags with which monetary policy affects economic activity and inflation, the Committee slowed the pace of interest rate increases over its past two meetings.” Powell added, “We will continue to make our decisions meeting by meeting, taking into account the totality of incoming data and their implications for the outlook for economic activity and inflation.”

Questions and Answers

Congressmen both in the Senate and the House use the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress (formerly known as Humphrey Hawkins Testimony) to ask questions of the person with the most economic insight in Washington. Often their questions have already been covered in the Chair’s opening address, but Congresspeople will ask anyway to show their constituents at home that they are looking after them.

Elizabeth Warren is on the Senate Banking Committee; her math concluded the result of even a 1% increase in unemployment is a two million-worker job loss. Warren asked Powell, “Do you call laying off two million people this year not a sharp increase in unemployment?” “Explain that to the two million families who are going to be out of work.” In his response, Powell went back to historical numbers and reminded the Senator that an increase in unemployment would still rank the current economy above what Americans have lived through in most of our lifetimes, “We’re not, again, we’re not targeting any of that. But I would say even 4.5 percent unemployment is well better than most of the time for the last, you know, 75 years,” Chair Powell answered.

U.S. House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday heard Congressman Frank Lucas concerned about the pressure for the Fed to include climate concerns as an additional Fed mandate. Lucas from Oklahoma asked,  “How careful are you in ensuring that the Fed does not place itself into the climate debate, and how can Congress ensure that the Fed’s regulatory tool kit is not warped into creating policy outcomes?” Powell answered that the Fed has a narrow but real role involving bank supervision. It’s important that individual banks understand and can manage over time their risks from any climate change and it’s impact on business and the economy. He wants to make sure the Fed never assumes a role where they are becoming a climate policymaker.

Other non-policy questions included Central Bank Digital Currencies. House Congressman Steven Lynch showed concerns that the Fed was experimenting with digital currencies. His question concerned receiving a public update on where they are with their partnership with MIT, their testing, and what they are trying to accomplish. Powell’s response seemed to satisfy the Congressman. “we engage with the public on an ongoing basis, we are also doing research on policy, and also technology,” said Powell. Follow-up questions on the architecture of a CBDC, were met with responses that indicated that the Fed, they are not at the stage of making decisions, instead, they are experimenting and learning. “How would this work, does it work, what is the best technology, what’s the most efficient.” Powell emphasized that the U.S. Federal Reserve is at an early stage, but making technological progress. They have not decided from a policy perspective if this is something that the country needs or desires.

Issues at Stake

As it relates to the stock and bond markets, the Fed has been holding overnight interest rates at a level that is more than one percentage point below the rate of inflation. The reality of this situation is that investors and savers that are earning near the Fed Funds rate on their deposits are losing buying power to the erosive effects of inflation. Those that are investing farther out on the yield curve are earning even less than overnight money. The impact here could be worse if inflation remains at current levels or higher, or better if the locked-in yields out longer on the curve are met with inflation coming down early on.

The Fed Chair indicated at the two testimony before both Houses of Congress that inflation has been surprisingly sticky. He also indicated that they might increase their expected stopping point on tightening credit. Interest rates out in the periods are actually lower than they had been in recent days and as much as 0.25% lower than they were last Fall. The lower market rates and inverted yield curve suggest the market thinks the Fed has already won and has likely gone too far. This thought process has made it difficult for the Fed Chair and others at the Fed that discuss a further need to throw cold water on an overheated economy. Fed Tightening has not led to an equal amount of upward movement out on the yield curve. This trust or expectation that the Fed has inflation under control would seem to be undermining the Fed’s efforts. With this, the Fed is likely to have to move even further to get the reaction it desires. The risk of an unwanted negative impact on the economy is heightened by the trust the bond market gives to Powell that he has this under control and may have already won.

Powell’s words are that the Fed has lost ground and has much more work to do.

Take Away

At his semiannual testimony to Congress, an important message was sent to the markets. The Fed has the right tools to do the job of bringing inflation down to the 2% range, but those tools operate on the demand side. In the U.S. we are fortunate to have two jobs open for every person seeking employment. While this is inflationary, it provides policy with more options.

As of the reporting of January economic numbers, a trend may be beginning indicating the Fed is losing its fight against inflation. It is likely that it will have to do more, but the Fed stands willing to do what it takes. Powell ended his prepared address by saying, “Everything we do is in service to our public mission. We at the Federal Reserve will do everything we can to achieve our maximum-employment and price-stability goals.”

Paul Hoffman

Managing Director, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony.htm

Three Regulators Provide Direction to Banks on Crypto

Image Credit: QuoteInspector.com (Flickr)

The Statement on Crypto Vulnerabilities by Regulators

A joint statement to banking organizations on “crypto-asset vulnerabilities” was just released by three bank regulatory agencies. Most banks in the U.S. fall under these three federal institutions overseeing them in a regulatory capacity. So when a statement regarding the health and stability of banks is made, it is often a joint statement from the three. At a minimum, statements include the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB), Office of the Controller of the Currency (OCC), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC).

About the Statement

Issued on February 23rd, the multiple agencies felt a need to highlight liquidity risks presented by some “sources of funding” from crypto-asset-related entities, and practices they should be using to manage the risks.

The regulators remind banks that they are neither prohibited nor discouraged from offering banking services to this class of customer, but if they do, much of the existing risk management principles should be applied.

Related Liquidity Risks

Highlighted in the statement by the three bank regulatory bodies are key liquidity risks associated with crypto asset participants and crypto-asset organizations involved in banking and what they should be aware of.

This includes some sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities that may pose heightened liquidity risks to those involved in banking due to the unpredictability of the scale and timing of deposit inflows and outflows, including, for example:

  • Deposits placed by a crypto-asset-related entity that is for the benefit of thecrypto-asset-related entity’s customers. The stability of the deposits, according to the statement, may be driven by the behavior of the end customer or asset sector dynamics, and not solely by the crypto-asset-related entity itself, which is the banking organization’s direct counterparty. The concern is the stability of the deposits may be influenced by, for example, periods of stress, market volatility, and related vulnerabilities in the crypto-asset sector, which may or may not be specific to the crypto-asset-related entity. Such deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid inflows as well as outflows when end customers react to crypto-asset-sector-related market events, media reports, and uncertainty. This uncertainty and resulting deposit volatility can be exacerbated by end customer confusion related to inaccurate or misleading representations of deposit insurance by a crypto-assetrelated entity.
  • Deposits that constitute stablecoin-related reserves. The stability of this type of  deposit may be linked to demand for stablecoins according to the agencies, along with the confidence of stablecoin holders in the coin arrangement, and the stablecoin issuer’s reserve management practices. These deposits can be susceptible to large and rapid outflows stemming from, for unanticipated stablecoin redemptions or dislocations in crypto-asset markets.

More broadly, when a banking organization’s deposit funding base is concentrated in crypto-asset-related entities that are highly interconnected or share similar risk profiles, deposit fluctuations may also be correlated, and liquidity risk therefore may be further heightened, according to the statement.

Effective Risk Management Practices

In light of these hightened risks, agencies think it is critical for banks that use certain sources of funding from crypto-asset-related entities, as described earlier, to actively monitor the liquidity risks inherent in these sources of funding and to establish and maintain effective risk management and controls commensurate with the level of liquidity risks from these funding sources. Effective practices for these banking organizations could include:

  • Understanding the direct and indirect drivers of the potential behavior of deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the extent to which those deposits are susceptible to unpredictible vulnerability.
  • Assessing potential concentration or interconnectedness across deposits from crypto-asset-related entities and the associated liquidity risks.
  • Incorporating the liquidity risks or funding volatility associated with crypto-asset-related deposits into contingency funding planning, including liquidity stress testing and, as appropriate, other asset-liability governance and risk management processes.
  • Performing significant due diligence and monitoring of crypto-related-entities that establish deposit accounts, including assessing the representations made by those crypto-asset-related entities to their end customers about the accounts – if innaccurate they could lead to to unexpected or rapid outflows.

Additionally, banks and banking organizations are required to comply with applicable laws and regulations.  For FDIC insured institutions, this includes compliance with rules related to brokered deposits and Call Report filing requirements.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/bcreg20230223a1.pdf

Why NFL Players and Other Pros Need an Elite Money Management Team

Image Credit: Randychiu (Flickr)

Managing Money Is as Important as Making It: The Sad Case of Athletes Going Broke

Lacking a solid team is a recipe for organizational failure, and those intending to excel in business—or any other sector—must invest in management. Considering that many professional athletes encounter bankruptcy shortly after retiring, they are a demographic that could greatly benefit from quality financial management teams. Elite athletes earn millions of dollars during a short time, but few succeed at multiplying their earnings to create wealth. An investigation by the Global Financial Literacy Center found that 16 percent of National Football League (NFL) players declare bankruptcy within twelve years of retirement. Quite startling is that some athletes report bankruptcy as early as two years after retirement.

The results of the study also showed that NFL stars were just as likely to experience bankruptcy as other NFL players. Bankruptcy figures are equally daunting for basketball players. Research reveals that National Basketball Association (NBA) players who file for bankruptcy do so within 7.3 years after retirement, and 6.1 percent of all NBA players go bankrupt within fifteen years of exiting their profession. The emotional trauma of bankruptcy can lead to distress. Research indicates that 78 percent of NFL players experience financial distress two years after retirement.

Inept management of finances is the easiest strategy for losing wealth. Professional athletes can avert financial calamities by investing in a better management team. There is a stark difference between managing a junior athlete and managing a superstar who earns millions of dollars yearly. A professional who manages a junior athlete could be an excellent manager for a player at that stage, but the transition to elite status requires people with greater expertise.

In business, a manager should possess the relevant skills. They don’t have to be your friend. Elite athletes need elite managers to help them navigate stratospheric wealth. If a manager doesn’t have expertise in managing successful athletes or businesses, then he is unfit to manage an elite athlete. Athletes who succeed at expanding their empires are reluctant to rely on the services of amateurs.

Magic Johnson credits his success to investing in capable people rather than to the “wisdom” of family members and old friends. Pablo S. Torre paints Johnson as a serious businessman in a piece highlighting the failures of professional athletes:

Johnson started out by admitting he knew nothing about business and sought counsel from . . . men such as Hollywood agent Michael Ovitzand and Peter Guber. Now, Johnson says, he gets calls from star players “every day” . . . and cuts them short if they propose relying on family and friends.

Johnson’s strategy is even more relevant in light of the recent financial scandal involving the disappearance of over twelve million dollars held by sprinting legend Usain Bolt in Jamaican investment firm Stock and Securities Limited (SSL). Venting to reporters, Bolt’s attorney Linton Gordon argues that the Financial Services Commission (FSC) should be held liable for the mishap because the agency lapsed in providing proper oversight:

They should bear responsibility to some extent, if not entirely, because all along they kept quiet and did not alert the public, including Mr. Bolt, to the fact that the company was not operating in a way compliant with the law. It’s 10 years now they say they have been red flagging this company. Had he known that he would have withdrawn his money and he would not have lodged anymore.

Blaming the regulator is easy, but the debacle reveals deficits in Bolt’s management team. Usain Bolt did not need to know that SSL was deemed unsound years ago because his management team should have furnished him with that information. Some years ago, I was at an event where fellow investors argued that SSL was irredeemable. Bolt’s managers were out of the loop. Moreover, Jamaica is known for institutional weakness and fraud, so it’s a bit weird that a man of Bolt’s stature would have so much money stored in a Jamaican institution to begin with.

Some say that the FSC must be accountable for the misappropriation of Bolt’s money, but the FSC penned a report that Bolt’s managers would have seen if they were doing research. Moreover, in a country where agencies are frequently compromised by politics, there is a possibility that the FSC did not suspend the operations of SSL because it was constrained by rogue actors. Bolt’s managers should have shown some insight by recommending that the superstar limit his Jamaican investments and by soliciting the services of leading wealth management firms like UBS Wealth Management or Baird.

The case study of Usain Bolt demonstrates that even athletes with good managers should never hesitate to upgrade when their employees are not equipped for bigger challenges. Money is hard to make, but with a bad manager, it’s easy to lose. Therefore, athletes interested in keeping their money must invest in the right team or face the consequences.

About the Author:

Lipton Matthews is a researcher, business analyst, and contributor to Merion West, The Federalist, American Thinker, Intellectual Takeout, mises.org, and Imaginative Conservative. He may be contacted at lo_matthews@yahoo.com

Do Some Money Measurements Double Count?

Image Credit: John (Flickr)

Can Correlations Help Define Money?

According to popular thinking, the government’s definition of money is of a flexible nature. Sometimes it could be M1, and at other times it could be M2 or some other M money supply. M1 includes currency and demand deposits. M2 includes all of M1, plus savings deposits, time deposits, and money market funds. By popular thinking what determines whether M1, M2, or some other M is considered money is whether it has high correlation with key economic data such as the gross domestic product (GDP).

However, since the early 1980s, correlations between various definitions of money and the GDP have broken down. The reason for this breakdown, many economists believe, is that financial deregulation has made the demand for money unstable. Consequently, the usefulness of money as a predictor of economic activity has significantly diminished.

Some economists believe that the relationship between money supply and the GDP could be strengthened by assigning weights to money supply components. The Divisia indicator, named after the French economist François Divisia, adjusts for differences in the degree to which various components of the monetary aggregate serve as money. This, in turn, supposedly offers a more accurate picture of what is happening to money supply.

The primary Divisia monetary indicator for the US is M4. It is a broad aggregate that includes negotiable money market securities, such as commercial paper, negotiable CDs, and T-bills. By assigning suitable weights, which are estimated by means of quantitative methods, it is held that one is likely to improve the correlation between the weighted monetary gauge and economic indicators.

Consequently, one could employ this monetary measure to ascertain the future course of key economic indicators. However, does it make sense?

Defining Money

No definition of money can be established by means of a correlation. A definition is supposed to present the essence of the subject being identified.

To establish the definition of money, we must determine how a money-using economy came about. Money emerged because barter could not support the market economy. A butcher who wanted to exchange his meat for fruit would have difficulty finding a fruit farmer who wanted his meat, while the fruit farmer who wanted to exchange his fruit for shoes might not have been able to find a shoemaker who wanted his fruit.

The distinguishing characteristic of money is that it is the general medium of exchange. It has evolved from the most marketable commodity. According to Murray Rothbard:

Just as in nature there is a great variety of skills and resources, so there is a variety in the marketability of goods. Some goods are more widely demanded than others, some are more divisible into smaller units without loss of value, some more durable over long periods of time, some more transportable over large distances. All of these advantages make for greater marketability. Eventually, one or two commodities are used as general media—in almost all exchanges—and these are called money.

With money, the butcher can exchange his meat for money and then exchange money for fruits. Likewise, the fruit farmer could exchange his fruit for money. With the obtained money, the fruit farmer can now exchange it for shoes. The reason why all these transactions become possible is because money is the most marketable commodity (i.e., the most accepted commodity).

According to Rothbard:

Money is not an abstract unit of account, divorceable from a concrete good; it is not a useless token only good for exchanging; it is not a “claim on society”; it is not a guarantee of a fixed price level. It is simply a commodity.

It follows then that all other goods and services are traded for money. This fundamental characteristic of money is contrasted with other goods. For instance, food supplies the necessary energy to human beings. Capital goods permit the expansion of the infrastructure that, in turn, permits the production of a larger quantity of goods and services. Contrary to the mainstream thinking, the essence of money has nothing to do with financial deregulation as this essence will remain intact in the most deregulated of markets.

Some commentators maintain that money’s main function is to fulfill the role of a means of savings. Others argue that its main role is to be a unit of account and a store of value. While all these roles are important, they are not fundamental. The basic role of money is to be a medium of exchange, with other functions such as unit of account, a store of value, and a means of savings arising from that role.

Through an ongoing selection process over thousands of years, individuals have settled on gold as money. In today’s monetary system, the money supply is no longer gold, but metal coins and paper notes issued by the government and the central bank. Consequently, coins and notes constitute money, known as cash, that is employed in transactions.

Distinction between Claim and Credit Transactions

At any point in time, an individual can keep money in a wallet or somewhere at home or deposit the money with a bank. In depositing money, an individual never relinquishes ownership over the money having an absolute claim over it.

This contrasts with a credit transaction, in which the lender of money relinquishes a claim over one’s money for the duration of the loan. As a result, in a credit transaction, money is transferred from a lender to a borrower. Credit transactions do not alter the amount of money. If Bob lends $1,000 to Joe, the money is transferred from Bob’s demand deposit or from Bob’s wallet to Joe’s possession.

Why Are Various Popular Definitions of Money Misleading?

Consider the money M2 definition, which includes money market securities, mutual funds, and other time deposits. However, investing in a mutual fund is, in fact, an investment in various money market instruments. The quantity of money is not altered because of this investment; only the ownership of money has temporarily changed. Hence, including mutual funds as part of money results in double counting.

The Divisia monetary gauge is of little help in establishing what money is. Because this indicator was designed to strengthen the correlation between monetary aggregates such as M4 and other Ms with an economic activity indicator, the Divisia gauge can better be seen as an exercise in curve fitting.

The Divisia of various Ms, such as the Divisia M4, does not address the double counting of money. The M4 is a broad aggregate and includes a mixture of claim and credit transactions (i.e., a double counting of money). This generates a misleading picture of what money is.

Applying various weights to the components of money cannot make the definition of money valid if it is created from erroneous components. Furthermore, even if the components were valid, one does not improve the money definition by assigning weights to components.

The introduction of electronic money has supposedly introduced another confusion regarding the definition of money. It is believed that electronic money is likely to make the cash redundant. We hold that electronic money is not new money, but rather a new way of employing existing monetary transactions. Regardless of these new ways of employing money, definitions and the role of money do not change.

Conclusion

The attempt to strengthen the correlation between various monetary aggregates and economic activity by using variable weighting of money supply components defeats the definition of money. The essence of money cannot be established by means of a statistical correlation, but rather by understanding what money is about.

About the Author

Frank Shostak is an Associated Scholar of the Mises Institute. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies. He received his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University, his master’s degree from Witwatersrand University, and his PhD from Rands Afrikaanse University.  

Are Naked Shorts Depressing Your Investment Portfolio?

Image Replicated from Twitter (1/23/2023)

Small-Cap Companies are Punching Back on Naked Shorts in Growing Numbers

The hashtag #NakedShorts has been trending on Twitter for over a week. To save Channelchek readers any embarrassment that may occur from Googling this term, especially at work, below are specifics on this market jargon. Also included below are specifics on why this has been trending and how it may impact self-directed retail traders and even small publicly traded companies that have the potential to be impacted by an illegal practice that apparently is not uncommon.

What are Naked Shorts?

Naked short selling of stocks is the illegal practice of short-selling shares that have not been allocated and verified to exist. Most shorting of stock occurs only after the trader borrows the security or determines that it can be borrowed before they sell it short (without owning). So naked shorting refers to short pressure on a stock that may actually be larger than the tradable shares in the market. This can place downward pressure on shares as they are sold, at times in excess of their existence.

Despite being made illegal after the 2008–09 financial crisis, naked shorting continues in practice because of loopholes in rules and discrepancies between physical and electronic trading systems.

Small Caps Revenge

Empowered by the activities of Gamestop (GME) and others, a growing number of small-cap companies are devising plans to go after naked short sellers.  This could help their companies trade at a fairer value rather than be artificially depressed by illegal trading practices.

Companies involved in heightening integrity in the markets for their stock are companies like Verb Technology Co. Inc. (VERB), a provider of interactive video-based sales apps with operations in Newport, California, and Lehi, Utah. Verb said this week it was joining education company Genius Group Ltd. (GNS), e-scooter and e-bike maker Helbiz (HLBZ), and Creatd Inc. (CRTD) designed for creators in coming up with measures to ensure “greater integrity in the capital markets” as Verb Chief Executive Rory J. Cutai said in a statement.

The move gained impetus last week as Genius Group said it had appointed a former F.B.I. director to lead a task force investigating alleged illegal trading in its stock, first disclosed a few weeks ago. Genius CEO believes there has been a measurable cost to the company. “We want this to stop,” he said. “They’re taking value away from our shareholders. They’re predators. They’re doing something illegal, and we want it to stop, whether that means getting regulators to enforce existing regulations or put new ones in place,” he said.

Legality of Naked Short Selling

In regular (legal) short trading, an investor borrows shares from someone else and pays an interest rate or “rebate rate.” They then sell them in anticipation of the stock price falling. The trade is a winner if the price falls and the seller buys them back at a lower price (netting out rebate rate) to close out the open short sale.

In naked short selling, investors don’t borrow the stock. They skip right to selling unowned with a promise to deliver them at a later date. If that promise is not fulfilled, it’s a failure to deliver.

Recently, companies such as AMC have paid a special dividend to determine, and frankly hurt, those short sellers that have not abided by the rules by first borrowing the security it sold.

Image: Elon Musk has been very vocal, Tesla is a company that hedge fund managers have routinely shorted (Twitter)

What Some Companies are Doing

Last week Helbiz said it was going to punch back at naked short positions. Creatd CEO Jeremy Frommer, meanwhile, is behind Ceobloc, a website that aims to end the practice of naked short selling. “Illegal naked short selling is the biggest risk to the health of today’s public markets” is how the site introduces its mission.

Genius just set guidance for 2023, saying it expects revenue of $48 million to $52 million, up 37% from its 2022 pro forma guidance. Last Thursday, the stock rose a record 290% in volume of about 270 million shares traded. That crushed the daily average of about 634,000. The CEO says this is another indicator of wrongdoing, given that the company’s float is just 10.9 million shares. “Clearly, that’s far more shares than we created,” the founder, Roger Hamilton points out.

Take Away

It is unclear what the task force of the small-cap companies intends to do. Companies like AMC Theaters (AMC) waged war by declaring a dividend that was a different class of stock. Shareholders would have to verify their ownership of a registered share in order to receive the dividend. This went a long way to verify what is in the float that is legitimate and that which is not.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/small-cap-companies-are-going-after-naked-short-sellers-in-growing-numbers-its-the-biggest-risk-to-the-health-of-todays-public-markets-11674480805?mod=newsviewer_click

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nakedshorting.asp

Robinhood Stockholder’s Concern if SBF’s Holdings are Being Seized

Image Credit: Matt (Flickr)

Could There be an Impact on Robinhood Shareholders with the SBF Share Seizure

Creditors and customers of FTX may be able to reclaim some assets that were wiped out as the feds have been seizing the 7.50% stake in Robinhood (HOOD) stock held by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF). SBF faces charges of fraud and a myriad of financial crimes after the collapse of FTX in November. The impact of the collapse is having an effect on other areas of finance, including assets that had been controlled by SBF. The Robinhood shares are valued near $450 million, and while this may bring some hope or relief to those that will receive a distribution, there is a risk to HOOD investors.

Background

The FTX bankruptcy has left a line of claimants to recapture what they can from the cryptocurrency giant. Bankruptcies are seldom easy; those that could involve layers of fraud become tied up in even larger disputes and legal battles. For example, the large Robinhood holding is tied up in a dispute between FTX and bankrupt crypto lender BlockFi. The company alleges that SBF put up the shares as collateral for a loan to Alameda Research, a company he also owned.

The HOOD stake was purchased in 2022 through a holding company SBF controlled, Robinhood of course is the innovative broker specializing in self-directed individual investors. Through the DOJ, authorities are going after the shares of HOOD and accounts that are held at the bank Silvergate Capital (SI) which is a banker for the crypto industry.

Separately, court filings on January 4th brought awareness to a NY federal judge ordered last month requiring the seizure of some $93 million that an FTX arm held in accounts at Silvergate. As it relates to this seizure. The Justice Department says it believes the assets seized are not the property of the bankruptcy estate, while a lawyer for FTX maintains that the seizures were from accounts not directly controlled by the company. They were ordered in connection with the criminal case involving SBF.  

 FTX investors’ asset claims in the exchange, which was once valued at $32 billion, come after creditors and other rightful claimants.

How This Could Impact Robinhood Shareholders

Asset seizures and later distribution to those hurt by fraud involve liquidation of the assets seized. In the case of stocks, they will be sold and turned into cash. Imagine a sudden effort to sell 7.50% of any company. That is a large percentage to move. The stake, worth between $400 and $500 million, may serve as a dark cloud depressing share prices and slowing any planned growth of the company. It may eventually culminate in liquidation at a pace not conducive to retaining a level stock price.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.theblock.co/post/199271/doj-seizing-millions-in-robinhood-shares-linked-to-ftx-lawyer-says

https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-ordered-seizure-of-money-from-ftx-digital-markets-accounts-at-silvergate-11672866368

https://www.barrons.com/articles/ftx-robinhood-doj-assets-51672932192?mod=hp_LATEST

The Week Ahead – CPI and Last FOMC Decision in 2022

FOMC Meeting and “Wall Street Wish List” May Impact Your Portfolio Most

Is the Fed really tightening lending rates to cool the economy? Because consumer rates have been headed lower since October. This last FOMC meeting of 2022 may help the markets to understand that something has to give. A 7.7% y-o-y CPI, a 3.75-4.00% Fed Funds target, and a 3.45% 20-year constant maturity treasury can not co-exist for long. Treasury investors either need to earn more to keep up with expected inflation realities, inflation needs to show a more certain downtrend or the Fed needs to go back to lowering Fed Funds levels. Having lived through the last three years of markets, which I can attest from experience, are very different from the previous 30 years, I’m still putting my money on what the Fed Chairman tells us he’s doing. However, markets being what they are will move with the moves of the masses, and that is what’s “right” because that is what makes money.  

The December FOMC meeting is front and center this week. We also get a new CPI report pre-meeting. Expect volatility, especially with longer-term treasuries already priced for a great CPI number.

Data Source: U.S. Treasury Dept.

Monday 12/12

  • 2:00 PM ET, Treasury Statement, forecasters see a $200.0 billion deficit in November that would compare with a $191.3 billion deficit in November a year ago and a deficit in October this year of $87.8 billion. The government’s fiscal year began in October. The size of the budget deficit is important because it impacts the amount of treasury issuance, and then supply and demand take over in terms of interest rates demanded to fill the supply.

Tuesday 12/13

  • 6:00 AM ET, Optimism is expected to remain low. The small business optimism index has been below the historical average of 98 for ten months in a row and deeply so in October at 91.3. November’s consensus is 90.8.
  • 8:30 AM ET, CPI for November is the first information with potential market-altering data to be released this week. It will be the last look at CPI for a month during 2022. CPI is expected to be 0,% for the month or 7.3% y-o-y. Do you remember how the market rallied on the better than the consensus 7.7% last month? Any deviation from the consensus could cause an impact.

Wednesday 12/14

  • 8:30 AM ET, Atlanta Fed Business Inflation Expectations for December. While we have no consensus data, The Atlanta Fed’s Business Inflation Expectations survey came in last month at 3.3% expected. The survey number provides a monthly measure of year-ahead inflation expectations and inflation uncertainty from the perspective of firms. The survey also provides a monthly gauge of firms’ current sales, profit margins, and unit cost changes.
  • 2:00 PM ET, FOMC Announcement, let the trading week unofficially begin as markets shuffle with new information from the 2:00 PM announcement and press conference that follows. After a series of 75 bp moves, the Fed is expected to be less aggressive with a 50 bp increase.

Thursday 12/15

  • 8:30 AM ET, Jobless Claims for the December 10 week are expected to come in at 230,000, or unchanged from the prior week. A large deviation from this number could move markets as employment is a Fed mandate.
  • 9:00 AM ET, Wall Street Wish List. Seasoned Analysts from Noble Capital Market’s veteran team discuss the sectors and companies they cover and perhaps provide actionable ideas as to where they may lean in the year ahead. Information for free online event is here.

Friday 12/16

  • 9:45 AM ET, PMI Composite Flash. At 46.2 in November, the services PMI has been sinking deeper into contraction though expectations for December’s flash is a little slower pace of contraction at 46.5. Manufacturing, at 47.7 in November, is expected little changed at 47.8.

What Else

The weekly focus is on the FOMC decision and press conference. Register for Channelchek emails and receive our synopsis of the FOMC outcome immediately post announcement.

It may turn out that the Wall Street Wish List is the most profitable sharing of ideas that you receive headed into the new year. Don’t miss this by clicking on the banner below to allow you free access.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Information

Sources

https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_long_term_rate&field_tdr_date_value=2022

https://econoday.com

When Will Monetary Policy Finally Score?

Image Credit: Pixabay (Pexels)

Why the Fed Needs to Gain Trust, Gain Momentum, and Gain More Yards

Monetary policy and its implementation is as much sport as science. Economics is actually a social science, so it relies on human behavior to mimic past behaviors as its prediction guide. But as in sports, victory is difficult if there is distrust in the coach that’s calling the shots (in this case Powell), or if there are people on your side that have reason to work against you, (an example would be Yellen). Consistency in blocking and tackling (doing the right thing) and not giving up, over time, wins games. Knowing what to expect from the opposing team (consumers) wins a healthy economy.

One repeated trait in monetary policy is that there is a lag between implementation (easing or tightening) and a change in economic conditions. It isn’t a short lag, and the impact varies. Since it could take more than a year for a policy change to begin to impact the economy, the Fed usually moves at a slow and measured pace in order to not overdo it.

The slow pace allows policymakers to observe the impact of their moves and change tactics (positions on the playing field) mid-game.  

Federal-Funds Rate During Tightening Cycles

Note: From December 2008, midpoint of target range. December 2015 hike excluded from 2016-18 cycle

Source: Federal Reserve

Over the past nine months, we have been in a tightening cycle. During this period, the Fed has raised rates by 3.75%. On average (since 1975), when the Fed has tightened rates, they are notched up by 5.00% over 20 months.

The Fed’s current pace is faster than average. This is because inflation took them by surprise, and rose rapidly. Putting up a strong defense against inflation that has been rampant is necessary to not be shut out and allow the Fed to gain control over the outcome.

Because one has to be able to reflect back more than 40 years to have experienced the Fed raising rates this fast. Many have lost confidence in its ability, and are in their own way working against a winning outcome.

Pace of Fed Hiking Cycles

Note: From December 2008, the midpoint of target range

Source: Federal Reserve

The stock and bond markets move in group anticipation of expected policy moves by the Fed. This has been more pronounced in recent years as the Fed has basically shared its expectations after each meeting, setting up for the next. Higher rates make bonds and bank deposits more attractive. Higher rates also weaken the economy and corporate profits, and that induces investors to move away from stocks and even real estate.

Bonds now offer the highest yields since 2007. The stock market may have anticipated what was to come as it peaked in early January of this year, more than two months before the Fed began hiking in March.

Fed Hikes and S&P 500 Bear Markets

Sources: Federal Reserve; Dow Jones Market Data

Sources: Federal Reserve; Dow Jones Market Data

Employment

The Fed is concerned with a wage-price spiral feeding on itself. It likely won’t be  satisfied that its tightening has been sufficient until it can be confident that it has avoided a wage-price storm on the economy.

Ideally, this would happen without unemployment rising. Soft landings took place in 1983-84 and 1994-95. But when inflation starts out too high, as it is now, unemployment usually rises notably, and a recession occurs.

Historically, this doesn’t happen until several years after the first increase. This time it is hoped it will be different, since the Fed is playing more aggressively.

Periods of Fed Hiking and Rising Unemployment

Note: The unemployment rate rose to 3.7% in October, up from the pandemic low of 3.5% a month earlier.
Sources: Federal Reserve; Labor Department

Inflation

Historically, inflation has only fallen to acceptable levels after unemployment has increased, and long after the first rate increase – the exact timing has varied. If the fall in core inflation (which excludes the volatile food and energy components) between September and October continues, and September proves to be the peak, the time between the first Fed increase and the high point of inflation will be one of the shortest of any Fed hiking cycle.

Often, the break in inflation has been accompanied by a recession. The economy receded in each of the first two quarters and then grew in the third. The changes in the inflation component in Gross Domestic Product may have borrowed from one quarter and have been additive to the next. The fourth quarter reading should help level the growth averages out to see if we were indeed in a shallow recession.

Proximity of Peak Inflation and Recessions to Initial Rate Hikes, from Year Hiking Cycle Began

Note: Inflation refers to core CPI.

Sources: Federal Reserve; Labor Department

Take  Away

As in many team sports, once one side gets momentum, they are difficult to stop . The Fed needs to gain the trust of the individual players in the economy in order to be successful. Saying one thing, then doing another, would undermine this trust. So far, despite the Fed originally being wrong about inflation, the Fed has done what it has said it would do. Stock and bond markets, which are a considerable part of the economy, have been slow to understand the Fed’s resolve.

It has been implementing the balance sheet run-off plan and raising rates toward a level it believes would equate to a future 2% inflation rate. Like so many other things in the social sciences, widely held expectations of the future become self-fulfilling.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.wsj.com/articles/move-over-inflation-here-comes-the-earnings-crunch-11668300124?mod=article_inline

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-raises-interest-rates-for-first-time-since-2018-11647453603?mod=article_inline

https://www.wsj.com/articles/feds-aggressive-rate-hikes-are-a-game-changer-11669006579?mod=economy_lead_pos5

www.BLS.gov

Does Cheaper Government Debt Crowd Out Liquidity?

Will Global Rate Hikes Set Off a Global Debt Bomb?

The higher levels of risky corporate debt issuance over the past few year will need to be refinanced between 2023 and 2025, In numbers terms,  there will be over $10 trillion of the riskiest debt at much higher interest rates and with less liquidity. In addition to domestic high yield issuance, the majority of the major European economies have issued negative-yielding debt over the past three years and must now refinance at significantly higher rates. In 2020–21.  the annual increase in the US money supply (M2) was 27 percent, more than 2.5 times higher than the quantitative easing peak of 2009 and the highest level since 1960. Negative yielding bonds, an economic anomaly that should have set off alarm bells as an example of a bubble worse than the “subprime” bubble, amounted to over $12 trillion. Even if refinancing occurs smoothly but at higher costs, the impact on new credit and innovation will be enormous, and the crowding out effect of government debt absorbing the majority of liquidity and the zombification of the already indebted will result in weaker growth and decreased productivity in the future.

Raising interest rates is a necessary but insufficient measure to combat inflation. To reduce inflation to 2 percent, central banks must significantly reduce their balance sheets, which has not yet occurred in local currency, and governments must reduce spending, which is highly unlikely.

The most challenging obstacle is also the accumulation of debt.

The so-called expansionary policies have not been an instrument for reducing debt, but rather for increasing it. In the second quarter of 2022, according to the Institute of International Finance (IIF), the global debt-to-GDP ratio will approach 350 percent of GDP. IIF anticipates that the global debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 352 percent by the end of 2022.

Global issuances of high-yield debt have slowed but remain elevated. According to the IMF, the total issuance of European and American high-yield bonds reached a record high of $1,6 trillion in 2021, as businesses and investors capitalized on still low interest rates and high liquidity. According to the IMF, high-yield bond issuances in the United States and Europe will reach $700 billion in 2022, similar to 2008 levels. All of the risky debt accumulated over the past few years will need to be refinanced between 2023 and 2025, requiring the refinancing of over $10 trillion of the riskiest debt at much higher interest rates and with less liquidity.

Moody’s estimates that United States corporate debt maturities will total $785 billion in 2023 and $800 billion in 2024. This increases the maturities of the Federal government. The United States has $31 trillion in outstanding debt with a five-year average maturity, resulting in $5 trillion in refinancing needs during fiscal 2023 and a $2 trillion budget deficit. Knowing that the federal debt of the United States will be refinanced increases the risk of crowding out and liquidity stress on the debt market.

According to The Economist, the cumulative interest bill for the United States between 2023 and 2027 should be less than 3 percent of GDP, which appears manageable. However, as a result of the current path of rate hikes, this number has increased, which exacerbates an already unsustainable fiscal problem.

If you think the problem in the United States is significant, the situation in the eurozone is even worse. Governments in the euro area are accustomed to negative nominal and real interest rates. The majority of the major European economies have issued negative-yielding debt over the past three years and must now refinance at significantly higher rates. France and Italy have longer average debt maturities than the United States, but their debt and growing structural deficits are also greater. Morgan Stanley estimates that, over the next two years, the major economies of the eurozone will require a total of $3 trillion in refinancing.

Although at higher rates, governments will refinance their debt. What will become of businesses and families? If quantitative tightening is added to the liquidity gap, a credit crunch is likely to ensue. However, the issue is not rate hikes but excessive debt accumulation complacency.

Explaining to citizens that negative real interest rates are an anomaly that should never have been implemented is challenging. Families may be concerned about the possibility of a higher mortgage payment, but they are oblivious to the fact that house prices have skyrocketed due to risk accumulation caused by excessively low interest rates.

The magnitude of the monetary insanity since 2008 is enormous, but the glut of 2020 was unprecedented. Between 2009 and 2018, we were repeatedly informed that there was no inflation, despite the massive asset inflation and the unjustified rise in financial sector valuations. This is inflation, massive inflation. It was not only an overvaluation of financial assets, but also a price increase for irreplaceable goods and services. The FAO food index reached record highs in 2018, as did the housing, health, education, and insurance indices. Those who argued that printing money without control did not cause inflation, however, continued to believe that nothing was wrong until 2020, when they broke every rule.

In 2020–21, the annual increase in the US money supply (M2) was 27 percent, more than 2.5 times higher than the quantitative easing peak of 2009 and the highest level since 1960. Negative yielding bonds, an economic anomaly that should have set off alarm bells as an example of a bubble worse than the “subprime” bubble, amounted to over $12 trillion. But statism was pleased because government bonds experienced a bubble. Statism always warns of bubbles in everything except that which causes the government’s size to expand.

In the eurozone, the increase in the money supply was the greatest in its history, nearly three times the Draghi-era peak. Today, the annualized rate is greater than 6 percent, remaining above Draghi’s “bazooka.” All of this unprecedented monetary excess during an economic shutdown was used to stimulate public spending, which continued after the economy reopened … And inflation skyrocketed. However, according to Lagarde, inflation appeared “out of nowhere.”

No, inflation is not caused by commodities, war, or “disruptions in the supply chain.” Wars are deflationary if the money supply remains constant. Several times between 2008 and 2018, the value of commodities rose sharply, but they do not cause all prices to rise simultaneously. If the amount of currency issued remains unchanged, supply chain issues do not affect all prices. If the money supply remains the same, core inflation does not rise to levels not seen in thirty years.

All of the excess of unproductive debt issued during a period of complacency will exacerbate the problem in 2023 and 2024. Even if refinancing occurs smoothly but at higher costs, the impact on new credit and innovation will be enormous, and the crowding out effect of government debt absorbing the majority of liquidity and the zombification of the already indebted will result in weaker growth and decreased productivity in the future.

About the Author:

Daniel Lacalle, PhD, economist and fund manager, is the author of the bestselling books Freedom or Equality (2020), Escape from the Central Bank Trap (2017), The Energy World Is Flat (2015), and Life in the Financial Markets (2014).

FTX, What Happened and Should Non-Crypto Investors Care

Image Credit: Phillip Pessar (Flickr)

Dramatic Collapse of the Cryptocurrency Exchange FTX Contains Lessons for Investors but Won’t Affect Most People

In the fast-paced world of cryptocurrency, vast sums of money can be made or lost in the blink of an eye. In early November 2022, the second-largest cryptocurrency exchange, FTX, was valued at more than US$30 billion. By Nov. 14, FTX was in bankruptcy proceedings along with more than 100 companies connected to it. D. Brian Blank and Brandy Hadley are professors who study finance, investing and fintech. They explain how and why this incredible collapse happened, what effect it might have on the traditional financial sector and whether you need to care if you don’t own any cryptocurrency.

What Happened?

In 2019, Sam Bankman-Fried founded FTX, a company that ran one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges.

FTX is where many crypto investors trade and hold their cryptocurrency, similar to the New York Stock Exchange for stocks. Bankman-Fried is also the founder of Alameda Research, a hedge fund that trades and invests in cryptocurrencies and crypto companies.

Sam Bankman-Fried founded both FTX and the investment firm Alameda Research. News sources have reported some less-than-responsible financial dealings between the two companies. Image via The Conversation.

Within the traditional financial sector, these two companies would be separate firms entirely or at least have divisions and firewalls in place between them. But in early November 2022, news outlets reported that a significant proportion of Alameda’s assets were a type of cryptocurrency released by FTX itself.

A few days later, news broke that FTX had allegedly been loaning customer assets to Alameda for risky trades without the consent of the customers and also issuing its own FTX cryptocurrency for Alameda to use as collateral. As a result, criminal and regulatory investigators began scrutinizing FTX for potentially violating securities law.

These two pieces of news basically led to a bank run on FTX.

Large crypto investors, like FTX’s competitor Binance, as well as individuals, began to sell off cryptocurrency held on FTX’s exchange. FTX quickly lost its ability to meet customer withdrawals and halted trading. On Nov. 14, FTX was also hit by an apparent insider hack and lost $600 million worth of cryptocurrency.

That same day, FTX, Alameda Research and 130 other affiliated companies founded by Bankman-Fried filed for bankruptcy. This action may leave more than a million suppliers, employees and investors who bought cryptocurrencies through the exchange or invested in these companies with no way to get their money back.

Among the groups and individuals who held currency on the FTX platform were many of the normal players in the crypto world, but a number of more traditional investment firms also held assets within FTX. Sequoia Capital, a venture capital firm, as well as the Ontario Teacher’s Pension, are estimated to have held millions of dollars of their investment portfolios in ownership stake of FTX. They have both already written off these investments with FTX as lost.

Image: OTPP

Did a Lack of Oversight Play a Role?

In traditional markets, corporations generally limit the risk they expose themselves to by maintaining liquidity and solvency. Liquidity is the ability of a firm to sell assets quickly without those assets losing much value. Solvency is the idea that a company’s assets are worth more than what that company owes to debtors and customers.

But the crypto world has generally operated with much less caution than the traditional financial sector, and FTX is no exception. About two-thirds of the money that FTX owed to the people who held cryptocurrency on its exchange – roughly $11.3 billion of $16 billion owed – was backed by illiquid coins created by FTX. FTX was taking its customers’ money, giving it to Alameda to make risky investments and then creating its own currency, known as FTT, as a replacement – cryptocurrency that it was unable to sell at a high enough price when it needed to.

In addition, nearly 40% of Alameda’s assets were in FTX’s own cryptocurrency – and remember, both companies were founded by the same person.

This all came to a head when investors decided to sell their coins on the exchange. FTX did not have enough liquid assets to meet those demands. This, in turn, drove the value of FTT from over $26 a coin at the beginning of November to under $2 by Nov. 13. By this point, FTX owed more money to its customers than it was worth.

In regulated exchanges, investing with customer funds is illegal. Additionally, auditors validate financial statements, and firms must publish the amount of money they hold in reserve that is available to fund customer withdrawals. And even if things go wrong, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation – or SIPC – protects depositors against the loss of investments from an exchange failure or financially troubled brokerage firm. None of these guardrails are in place within the crypto world.

Why is this a Big Deal in Crypto?

As a result of this meltdown, the company Binance is now considering creating an industry recovery fund – akin to a private version of SIPC insurance – to avoid future failures of crypto exchanges.

But while the collapse of FTX and Alameda – valued at more than $30 billion and now essentially worth nothing – is dramatic, the bigger implication is simply the potential lost trust in crypto. Bank runs are rare in traditional financial institutions, but they are increasingly common in the crypto space. Given that Bankman-Fried and FTX were seen as some of the biggest, most trusted figures in crypto, these events may lead more investors to think twice about putting money in crypto.

If I Don’t Own Crypto, Should I Care?

Though investment in cryptocurrencies has grown rapidly, the entire crypto market – valued at over $3 trillion at its peak – is much smaller than the $120 trillion traditional stock market.

While investors and regulators are still evaluating the consequences of this fall, the impact on any person who doesn’t personally own crypto will be minuscule. It is true that many larger investment funds, like BlackRock and the Ontario Teachers Pension, held investments in FTX, but the estimated $95 million the Ontario Teachers Pension lost through the collapse of FTX is just 0.05% of the entire fund’s investments.

The takeaway for most individuals is not to invest in unregulated markets without understanding the risks. In high-risk environments like crypto, it’s possible to lose everything – a lesson investors in FTX are learning the hard way.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of D. Brian Blank, Assistant Professor of Finance, Mississippi State University and Brandy Hadley, Associate Professor of Finance and the David A. Thompson Professor in Applied Investments, Appalachian State University

QuoteMedia Inc. (QMCI) – Hoping For More Gas To Fuel Faster Revenue Growth


Friday, November 11, 2022

QuoteMedia is a leading software developer and cloud-based syndicator of financial market information and streaming financial data solutions to media, corporations, online brokerages, and financial services companies. The Company licenses interactive stock research tools such as streaming real-time quotes, market research, news, charting, option chains, filings, corporate financials, insider reports, market indices, portfolio management systems, and data feeds. QuoteMedia provides industry leading market data solutions and financial services for companies such as the Nasdaq Stock Exchange, TMX Group (TSX Stock Exchange), Canadian Securities Exchange (CSE), London Stock Exchange Group, FIS, U.S. Bank, Broadridge Financial Systems, JPMorgan Chase, CI Financial, Canaccord Genuity Corp., Hilltop Securities, HD Vest, Stockhouse, Zacks Investment Research, General Electric, Boeing, Bombardier, Telus International, Business Wire, PR Newswire, FolioFN, Regal Securities, ChoiceTrade, Cetera Financial Group, Dynamic Trend, Inc., Qtrade Financial, CNW Group, IA Private Wealth, Ally Invest, Inc., Suncor, Virtual Brokers, Leede Jones Gable, Firstrade Securities, Charles Schwab, First Financial, Cirano, Equisolve, Stock-Trak, Mergent, Cision, Day Trade Dash and others. Quotestream®, QModTM and Quotestream ConnectTM are trademarks of QuoteMedia. For more information, please visit www.quotemedia.com.

Michael Kupinski, Director of Research, Noble Capital Markets, Inc.

Patrick McCann, Research Associate, Noble Capital Markets, Inc.

Refer to the full report for the price target, fundamental analysis, and rating.

Mixed Q3 results. The company reported revenue of $4.39 million, missing our estimate of $4.76 million by 7.7%. Revenues were partially impacted by currency exchange. Adj. EBITDA of $670,000 was in line with our estimate of $680,000. While revenue was below our estimate the company still grew revenue by 15% and is on pace for historic high revenue. 

Currency rate impact. Over the latest quarter, the Canadian dollar (CAD) depreciated against the U.S dollar (USD). Depreciation of CAD negatively affected company revenues, as the company receives roughly 33% of its revenue in CAD. Management noted that on a constant currency basis Q3 revenue growth would have been approximately 18% to 19%, considerably closer to company guidance of 20% revenue growth.


Get the Full Report

This Company Sponsored Research is provided by Noble Capital Markets, Inc., a FINRA and S.E.C. registered broker-dealer (B/D).

*Analyst certification and important disclosures included in the full report. NOTE: investment decisions should not be based upon the content of this research summary. Proper due diligence is required before making any investment decision. 

How the Fed’s Balance Sheet Trimming Impacts You

Image: Press conference following November 2022 FOMC meeting – Federal Reserve (Flickr)

Fed Faces Twin Threats of Recession and Financial Crisis as its Inflation Fight Raises Risks of Both

The Fed raising the overnight rate is only half the reason the economy may be driven into a recession and create a financial crisis according to a Mississippi Professor of Finance. He believes the Fed’s interest rate approach, which is most talked about, may create problems, but Professor Blank also points out and defines the Fed’s balance sheet changes and what they could mean for markets, the economy, and the world of finance.

There is wide agreement among economists and market observers that the Federal Reserve’s aggressive interest rate hikes will cause economic growth to grind to a halt, leading to a recession. Less talked about is the risk of a financial crisis as the U.S. central bank simultaneously tries to shrink its massive balance sheet.

As expected, the Fed on Nov. 2, 2022, lifted borrowing costs by 0.75 percentage point – its fourth straight hike of that size, which brings its benchmark rate to as high as 4%.

At the same time as it’s been raising rates, the Fed has been quietly trimming down its balance sheet, which swelled after the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020. It reached a high of US$9 trillion in April 2022 and has since declined by about $240 billion as the Fed reduces its holdings of Treasury securities and other debt that it bought to avoid an economic meltdown early in the pandemic.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of D. Brian Blank, Assistant Professor of Finance, Mississippi State University.

As a finance expert, I have been studying financial decisions and markets for over a decade. I’m already seeing signs of distress that could snowball into a financial crisis, compounding the Fed’s woes as it struggles to contain soaring inflation.

Fed Balance Sheet Basics

As part of its mandate, the Federal Reserve maintains a balance sheet, which includes securities, such as bonds, as well as other instruments it uses to pump money into the economy and support financial institutions.

The balance sheet has grown substantially over the last two decades as the Fed began experimenting in 2008 with a policy known as quantitative easing – in essence, printing money – to buy debt to help support financial markets that were in turmoil. The Fed again expanded its balance sheet drastically in 2020 to provide support, or liquidity, to banks and other financial institutions so the financial system didn’t run short on cash. Liquidity refers to the efficiency with which a security can be converted into cash without affecting the price.

But in March 2022, the Fed switched gears. It stopped purchasing new securities and began reducing its holdings of debt in a policy known as quantitative tightening. The current balance is $8.7 trillion, two-thirds of which are Treasury securities issued by the U.S. government.

The result is that there is one less buyer in the $24 trillion treasury market, one of the largest and most important markets in the world. And that means less liquidity.

Loss of Liquidity

Markets work best when there’s plenty of liquidity. But when it dries up, that’s when financial crises happen, with investors having trouble selling securities or other assets. This can lead to a fire sale of financial assets and plunging prices.

Treasury markets have been unusually volatile this year – resulting in the biggest losses in decades – as prices drop and yields shoot up. This is partly due to the Fed rate hikes, but another factor is the sharp loss of liquidity as the central bank pares its balance sheet. A drop in liquidity increases risks for investors, who then demand higher returns for financial assets. This leads to lower prices.

The loss of liquidity not only adds additional uncertainty into markets but could also destabilize financial markets. For example, the most recent quantitative tightening cycle, in 2019, led to a crisis in overnight lending markets, which are used by banks and other financial institutions to lend each other money for very short periods.

Given the sheer size of the Treasury market, problems there are likely to leak into virtually every other market in the world. This could start with money market funds, which are held as low-risk investments for individuals. Since these investments are considered risk-free, any possible risk has substantial consequences – as happened in 2008 and 2020.

Other markets are also directly affected since the Fed holds more than just Treasuries. It also holds mortgages, which means its balance sheet reduction could hurt liquidity in that market too. Quantitative tightening also decreases bank reserves in the financial system, which is another manner in which financial stability could be threatened and increase the risk of a crisis.

The last time the Fed tried to reduce its balance sheet, it caused what was known as a “taper tantrum” as debt investors reacted by selling bonds, causing bond yields to rise sharply, and forced the central bank to reverse course. The long and short of it is that if the Fed continues to reduce its holdings, it could stack a financial crisis on top of a recession, which could lead to unforeseen problems for the U.S. economy – and economies around the globe.

A Two-Front War

For the moment, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has said he believes markets are handling its balance sheet rundown effectively. And on Nov. 2, the Fed said it would continue reducing its balance sheet – to the tune of about $1.1 trillion a year.

Obviously, not everyone agrees, including the U.S. Treasury, which said that the lower liquidity is raising government borrowing costs.

The risks of a major crisis will only grow as the U.S. economy continues to slow as a result of the rate hikes. While the fight against inflation is hard enough, the Fed may soon have a two-front war on its hands.

October’s Stock Market Performance Has a Valuable Lesson

Image Credit: Jordan Doane (500px.com)

Looking Back at October and Forward to Year-End 2022

The stock market for October was a home run for many industries. In fact, only a few market sectors were negative, each by less than one percent. After a losing first three quarters in most categories, investors are now asking, are we out of the losing slump? Did I already miss the best plays? There are still two months left in 2022, and there are a number of expected events that could cause high volatility (up/down). If you’ve been a market spectator, you want to know, should I get on the field and maybe take advantage of this streak? If you’ve been involved and are now at a recent high, you may instead consider taking a seat for the last two months.

Let’s look back and then forward as we enter the final two months of the year. Below we look at the month behind us in stocks, gold, and crypto. There is something that may be unfolding is stocks that is worth steering around.

Major Market Indexes for October

Source: Koyfin

Large industrials, as measured by the Dow 30, had the best comparative performance in October. In fact, the Dow had its best month since 1976. Some investors have been rotating out of large high-tech and into more traditional businesses, like large industrial companies. Another reason it has gotten attention is of the 30 stocks in the Dow Industrials, at least 27 are expected to pay dividends; the lower stock prices from months of decline have raised the expected dividend yields to levels where investors are finding value and doing some reallocating. For example, Dow Chemicals (DOW)with a yield near 5% (plus any appreciations) or Verizon (VZ) at 7% can be appealing, especially for assets of retirees.

The small-cap stocks, as measured by the Russell 2000, weren’t far behind the Dow 30. This group has been lagging for some time and, by many measures, including price/earnings, offers value, while many larger stocks are still considered overpriced. Another thing working in favor of small U.S.-based companies is a likely customer universe that is not hurt by a strong dollar and international trade. In fact, there are small companies that can be shown to have benefitted from a strong native currency and have a competitive advantage with lower borrowing needs. Many analysts expect continued outperformance of the small-cap sector as it offers value and less global disruption.

The top 500 largest stocks, as measured by the S&P 500, had a very good month but are being dragged down by the large weighting of a few huge companies that the market feels have gotten way ahead of where they should be reasonably priced. The Nasdaq 100, shown above as returning only around 3.6%, has been hurt by this index weighting as well. These indexes had once benefitted from these few stocks flying high during the pandemic; the post-pandemic world, as well as global headwinds, are now working against them.

Major Market Indexes Through 10/2022

Source: Koyfin

Investors have been taught that index funds and ETFs provide diversification, but that has never been true of Dow-indexed funds (30 stocks). And the S&P and Nasdaq 100, with heavy weightings in a few companies, only give the illusion of broad exposure. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 relative performance during October may cause more investors to consider hand-selecting companies with lower P/Es, lower global exposure, and higher growth potential.

Sectors Within S&P Index

Source: Koyfin

Oil companies regained their lead as they have been a sector detached from other stocks since late 2019. The industrial sector was second and followed by the only other industry above double digits, finance. Most (not all) financial companies benefit from higher interest rates, and those that take deposits (short-term) and lend money (long-term) do best with a steep yield curve.

On the bottom of the list are consumer discretionary companies, which are hurt by the strong dollar and a weakening economy; this sector is followed by communication. Communication is worth a deeper dive as it exemplifies how the weighting of stocks in popular indexes can hurt index returns – some say high-flying, highly weighted stocks are even in a bubble.

Below the chart compares two names in the S&P 500 that are also represented in the communications index. Meta (META) is 17.70% of the index and is down 30% in October. AT&T (T) is 4.70% of the communications index; it returned nearly 20% for the month. The funds weighting methodology that worked to the advantage of index investors, until it didn’t, has worked against some index investors.

Source: Koyfin

There is a rivalry of sorts between larger, more accepted cryptocurrencies and gold. Gold wants to regain its centuries-old place as the hard asset that best represents safety, even in the worst conditions, and Bitcoin or Ether, which is looking for respect, as the alternative asset that represents safety.

Crypto has been loosely moving in the same direction as stocks all year. October was no exception, as its price per dollar rose significantly during the month. Gold, despite much worry in the world, continued a slow downtrend.

Gold and Bitcoin Performance

Source: Koyfin

Take Away

Stock market participants that held on finally got a month where it was hard not to come out ahead. The question now is, do you take the gains and sit tight while the fed tightening, election, war, and global recession settle? Or do you look at the current dynamics and allocate where the highest probability of success lies? Maybe small-cap value stocks or oil and gas companies.

There is one thing investors have been warned about repeatedly over the years by well-respected investors, including Michael Burry. There is a risk inherent in indexes now that a few extremely “overpriced” stocks represent a large percentage of index funds.

Investors evaluating smaller, individual stocks have found the data and analysis on Channelchek to be indispensable. Be sure to sign-up for Channelchek at no cost to receive unbiased research on companies that are less talked about, but may have a place in your portfolio mix.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1062

https://indexarb.com/dividendYieldSorteddj.html

https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/xlc/holdings